NATIONAL CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION BOARD (NCMB)

Mandate
The NCMB, created under Executive Order No. 126 as amended by EO
251, reorganizing the DOLE, shall formulate policies, develop plans and
programs and set standards and procedures relative to the promotion of
conciliation and mediation of labor disputes through the preventive
mediation, conciliation and voluntary arbitration; facilitation of labor-
management cooperation through joint mechanisms for information sharing,
effective communication and consultation and group-problem solving.

Functions
The NCMB, as a staff and line office, has the following functions:

1) Formulate policies, programs, standards, procedures, manuals of

operations and guidelines pertaining to effective mediation and
conciliation of all labor dispute.
2) Perform preventive mediation and conciliation functions.
3) Coordinate and maintain linkages with other sectors of institutions,
and other government authorities concerned with matters relative to
the prevention and settlement of labor disputes.
4) Formulates policies, plans, programs, standards, procedures,
manuals of operations and guidelines pertaining to the promotion of
cooperative and non-adversarial schemes, grievance handling,
voluntary arbitration and other voluntary modes of dispute
settlement.
5) Administer the voluntary arbitration program; maintain/update a list of
voluntary arbitrators, compile arbitration awards and decisions.
6) Provide counseling and preventive mediation assistance particularly
in the administration of collective agreements
7) Monitor and exercise technical supervision over the Board’s
programs being implemented in the regional offices; and
8) Perform such other functions as may be provided by law or assigned
by the Secretary.

Page 1 of 14
HALAGUENA vs. PAL Ruling:
GR No. 172013; Oct. 2009 Yes. The subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, exclusively
cognizable by the RTC. Being an ordinary civil action, the same is beyond
FACTS: the jurisdiction of labor tribunals.

Petitioners were employed as female flight attendants of respondent Not every controversy or money claim by an employee against the employer
Philippine Airlines (PAL) on different dates prior to November 22, 1996. They or vice-versa is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. Actions
are members of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the between employees and employer where the employer-employee
Philippines (FASAP), a labor organization certified as the sole and exclusive relationship is merely incidental and the cause of action precedes from a
certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the flight different source of obligation is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular
attendants, flight stewards and pursers of respondent. court.

On July 11, 2001, respondent and FASAP entered into a Collective Being an ordinary civil action, the same is beyond the jurisdiction of labor
Bargaining Agreement incorporating the terms and conditions of their tribunals.The said issue cannot be resolved solely by applying the Labor
agreement for the years 2000 to 2005, hereinafter referred to as PAL-FASAP Code. Rather, it requires the application of the Constitution, labor statutes,
CBA. law on contracts and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women, and the power to apply and interpret the
Section 144, Part A of the PAL-FASAP CBA, provides that: constitution and CEDAW is within the jurisdiction of trial courts, a court of
general jurisdiction. In GeorgGrotjahn GMBH & Co. v. Isnani, this Court held
A. For the Cabin Attendants hired before 22 November 1996: that not every dispute between an employer and employee involves matters
x x x x that only labor arbiters and the NLRC can resolve in the exercise of their
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. The jurisdiction of labor arbiters and
3. Compulsory Retirement the NLRC under Article 217 of the Labor Code is limited to dispute arising
from an employer-employee relationship which can only be resolved by
reference to the Labor Code other labor statutes, or their collective
Subject to the grooming standards provisions of this bargaining agreement.
Agreement, compulsory retirement shall be fifty-five (55) for females and
sixty (60) for males. x x x. ======================================
In a letter dated July 22, 2003, petitioners and several female cabin crews
manifested that the aforementioned CBA provision on compulsory retirement [G.R. No. 112139. January 31, 2000]
is discriminatory, and demanded for an equal treatment with their male LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. CA
counterparts. This demand was reiterated in a letter by petitioners' counsel
addressed to respondent demanding the removal of gender discrimination FACTS:
provisions in the coming re-negotiations of the PAL-FASAP CBA. "The evidence shows that in June 1986, plaintiff Commando Security
Service Agency, Inc., and defendant Lapanday Agricultural Development
On July 29, 2004, petitioners filed a Special Civil Action for Declaratory Corporation entered into a Guard Service Contract. Plaintiff provided security
Relief with Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and Writ guards in defendants banana plantation. The contract called for the payment
of Preliminary Injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, to a guard of P754.28 on a daily 8-hour basis and an additional P565.72 for a
Branch 147 four hour overtime while the shift-in-charge was to be paid P811.40 on a
daily 8-hour basis and P808.60 for the 4-hour overtime.
ISSUE: Wage Orders increasing the minimum wage in 1983 were complied with by
Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the petitioners' action challenging the the defendant. On June 16, 1984, Wage Order No. 5 was promulgated
legality or constitutionality of the provisions on the compulsory retirement age directing an increase of P3.00 per day on the minimum wage of workers in
contained in the CBA between respondent PAL and FASAP. the private sector and a P5.00 increase on the ECOLA. This was followed on

Page 2 of 14
November 1, 1984 by Wage Order No. 6 which further increased said Labor Code as amended vests upon the labor arbiters exclusive original
minimum wage by P3.00 on the ECOLA. Both Wage Orders contain the jurisdiction only over the following:
following provision: 1. Unfair labor practices;
"In the case of contract for construction projects and for security, janitorial 2. Termination disputes;
and similar services, the increase in the minimum wage and allowances rates 3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers
of the workers shall be borne by the principal or client of the may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and
construction/service contractor and the contracts shall be deemed amended conditions of employment;
accordingly, subject to the provisions of Sec. 3 (b) of this order" (Sec. 6 and 4. Claims for actual, moral exemplary and other forms of damages arising
Sec. 9, Wage Orders No. 5 and 6, respectively)." from employer-employee relations;
Plaintiff demanded that its Guard Service Contract with defendant be 5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including
upgraded in compliance with Wage Order Nos. 5 and 6. Defendant refused. questions involving legality of strikes and lockouts; and
Their Contract expired on June 6, 1986 without the rate adjustment called for 6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare
Wage Order Nos. 5 and 6 being implemented. By the time of the filing of and maternity benefits, all other claims, arising from employer-employee
plaintiffs Complaint, the rate adjustment payable by defendant amounted relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service,
to P462,346.25. Defendant opposed the Complaint by raising the following involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless
defenses: (1) the rate adjustment is the obligation of the plaintiff as employer of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.
of the security guards; (2) assuming its liability, the sum it should pay is less In all these cases, an employer-employee relationship is an indispensable
[10]
in amount; and (3) the Wage Orders violate the impairment clause of the jurisdictional requisite; and there is none in this case.
Constitution.
The trial court decided in favor of the plaintiff. On the merits, the core issue involved in the present petition is whether or
not petitioner is liable to the private respondent for the wage adjustments
ISSUE: provided under Wage Order Nos. 5 and 6 and for attorneys fees.
WON THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS IS THE PROPER FORUM
THAT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE OF WHETHER The records show that judgment was rendered by Labor Arbiter Newton R.
OR NOT THE PETITIONER IS LIABLE TO PAY THE PRIVATE Sancho holding both petitioner and private respondent jointly and solidarily
[19]
RESPONDENT THE WAGE AND ALLOWANCE INCREASES MANDATED liable to the security guards in a Decision dated October 17, 1986 (NLRC
[20]
UNDER WAGE ORDER NOS. 5 AND 6. Case No. 2849-MC-XI-86). However, it is not disputed that the private
respondent has not actually paid the security guards the wage increases
HELD: granted under the Wage Orders in question. Neither is it alleged that there is
We resolve first the issue of jurisdiction. We agree with the respondent that an extant claim for such wage adjustments from the security guards
the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present case. It is well concerned, whose services have already been terminated by the contractor.
settled in law and jurisprudence that where no employer-employee Accordingly, private respondent has no cause of action against petitioner to
relationship exists between the parties and no issue is involved which may recover the wage increases. Needless to stress, the increases in wages are
be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes or any intended for the benefit of the laborers and the contractor may not assert a
collective bargaining agreement, it is the Regional Trial Court that has claim against the principal for salary wage adjustments that it has not actually
[8]
jurisdiction. In its complaint, private respondent is not seeking any relief paid. Otherwise, as correctly put by the respondent, the contractor would be
under the Labor Code but seeks payment of a sum of money and damages unduly enriching itself by recovering wage increases, for its own benefit.
on account of petitioners alleged breach of its obligation under their Guard
Service Contract. The action is within the realm of civil law hence jurisdiction =======================================
[9]
over the case belongs to the regular courts. While the resolution of the
issue involves the application of labor laws, reference to the labor code was
only for the determination of the solidary liability of the petitioner to the
respondent where no employer-employee relation exists. Article 217 of the

Page 3 of 14
7K CORP. vs. ALBARICO
G.R. No. 182295, June 26, 2013 ISSUE:

FACTS: WON the CA committed reversible error in finding that the voluntary arbitrator
properly assumed jurisdiction to decide the issue of the legality of the
When he was dismissed on 5 April 1993, respondent Eddie Albarico dismissal of respondent as well as the latter’s entitlement to backwages,
(Albarico) was a regular employee of petitioner 7K Corporation, a company even if neither the legality nor the entitlement was expressedly claimed in the
selling water purifiers. He started working for the company in 1990 as a Submission Agreement of the parties.
salesman.4 Because of his good performance, his employment was
regularized. He was also promoted several times: from salesman, he was HELD:
promoted to senior sales representative and then to acting team field
supervisor. In 1992, he was awarded the President’s Trophy for being one of Preliminarily, we address petitioner’s claim that under Article 217 of the
the company’s top water purifier specialist distributors. In April of 1993, the Labor Code, original and exclusive jurisdiction over termination disputes,
chief operating officer of petitioner 7K Corporation terminated Albarico’s such as the present case, is lodged only with the labor arbiter of the
employment allegedly for his poor sales performance.5Respondent had to NLRC.24
stop reporting for work, and he subsequently submitted his money claims
against petitioner for arbitration before the National Conciliation and Petitioner overlooks the proviso in the said article,
Mediation Board (NCMB). The issue for voluntary arbitration before the thus:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
NCMB, according to the parties’ Submission Agreement dated 19 April 1993,
was whether respondent Albarico was entitled to the payment of separation Art. 217. Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the Commission.
pay and the sales commission reserved for him by the corporation.6
a. Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor Arbiters shall
While the NCMB arbitration case was pending, respondent Albarico filed a have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30)
Complaint against petitioner corporation with the Arbitration Branch of the calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal with without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following
money claims for overtime pay, holiday compensation, commission, and food cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-
and travelling allowances.7 The Complaint was decided by the labor arbiter agricultural:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
in favor of respondent Albarico, who was awarded separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement, backwages and attorney’s fees.8 x x x x

On appeal by petitioner, the labor arbiter’s Decision was vacated by the 2. Termination disputes;
NLRC for forum shopping on the part of respondent Albarico, because the
NCMB arbitration case was still pending.9 The NLRC Decision, which x x x x
explicitly stated that the dismissal was without prejudice to the pending
NCMB arbitration case,10became final after no appeal was taken. 6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare
and maternity benefits, all other claims arising from employer-employee
On 18 November 2005, the NCMB voluntary arbitrator rendered a Decision relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service,
finding petitioner corporation liable for illegal dismissal.15 The termination of involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless
respondent Albarico, by reason of alleged poor performance, was found of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. (Emphases supplied)
invalid. However, it was found that reinstatement was no longer possible Thus, although the general rule under the Labor Code gives the labor arbiter
because of the strained relationship of the parties.18 Thus, in lieu of exclusive and original jurisdiction over termination disputes, it also
reinstatement, the voluntary arbitrator ordered the corporation to pay recognizes exceptions. One of the exceptions is provided in Article 262 of the
separation pay for two years at P4,456 for each year, or a total amount of Labor Code. In San Jose v. NLRC,25 we said:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
P8,912.

Page 4 of 14
The phrase “Except as otherwise provided under this Code” refers to the to voluntarily resigning employees31 or to those validly dismissed for non-
following exceptions:cralavvonlinelawlibrary membership in a union as required in a closed-shop agreement.32

A. Art. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters . . . The above circumstances, however, do not obtain in the present case. There
is no claim that the issue of entitlement to separation pay is being resolved in
x x x x the context of any authorized cause of termination undertaken by petitioner
corporation. Neither is there any allegation that a consideration of social
(c) Cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective justice is being resolved here. In fact, even in instances in which separation
bargaining agreement and those arising from the interpretation or pay is awarded in consideration of social justice, the issue of the validity of
enforcement of company procedure/policies shall be disposed of by the the dismissal still needs to be resolved first. Only when there is already a
Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary finding of a valid dismissal for a just cause does the court then award
arbitrator as may be provided in said agreement. separation pay for reason of social justice. The other circumstances when
separation pay may be awarded are not present in this case.
B. Art. 262. Jurisdiction over other labor disputes. The Voluntary Arbitrator or
panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, upon agreement of the parties, shall also hear The foregoing findings indisputably prove that the issue of separation pay
and decide all other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and emanates solely from respondent’s allegation of illegal dismissal. In fact,
bargaining deadlocks. (Emphasis supplied) petitioner itself acknowledged the issue of illegal dismissal in its position
We also said in the same case that “[t]he labor disputes referred to in the paper submitted to the NCMB.
same Article 262 [of the Labor Code] can include all those disputes
mentioned in Article 217 over which the Labor Arbiter has original and Moreover, we note that even the NLRC was of the understanding that the
exclusive jurisdiction.”26 NCMB arbitration case sought to resolve the issue of the legality of the
dismissal of the respondent. In fact, the identity of the issue of the legality of
From the above discussion, it is clear that voluntary arbitrators may, by his dismissal, which was previously submitted to the NCMB, and later
agreement of the parties, assume jurisdiction over a termination dispute such submitted to the NLRC, was the basis of the latter’s finding of forum
as the present case, contrary to the assertion of petitioner that they may not. shopping and the consequent dismissal of the case before it. In fact,
petitioner also implicitly acknowledged this when it filed before the NLRC its
We now resolve the main issue. Motion to Dismiss respondent’s Complaint on the ground of forum shopping.
Thus, it is now estopped from claiming that the issue before the NCMB does
We rule that although petitioner correctly contends that separation pay may not include the issue of the legality of the dismissal of respondent. Besides,
in fact be awarded for reasons other than illegal dismissal, the circumstances there has to be a reason for deciding the issue of respondent’s entitlement to
of the instant case lead to no other conclusion than that the claim of separation pay. To think otherwise would lead to absurdity, because the
respondent Albarico for separation pay was premised on his allegation of voluntary arbitrator would then be deciding that issue in a vacuum. The
illegal dismissal. Thus, the voluntary arbitrator properly assumed jurisdiction arbitrator would have no basis whatsoever for saying that Albarico was
over the issue of the legality of his dismissal. entitled to separation pay or not if the issue of the legality of respondent’s
dismissal was not resolve first.
True, under the Labor Code, separation pay may be given not only when
there is illegal dismissal. In fact, it is also given to employees who are Hence, the voluntary arbitrator correctly assumed that the core issue behind
terminated for authorized causes, such as redundancy, retrenchment or the issue of separation pay is the legality of the dismissal of respondent.
installation of labor-saving devices under Article 28329 of the Labor Code. Moreover, we have ruled in Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. v. Deputy
Additionally, jurisprudence holds that separation pay may also be awarded Administrator Magsalin33 that a voluntary arbitrator has plenary jurisdiction
for considerations of social justice, even if an employee has been terminated and authority to interpret an agreement to arbitrate and to determine the
for a just cause other than serious misconduct or an act reflecting on moral scope of his own authority when the said agreement is vague — subject only,
character.30 The Court has also ruled that separation pay may be awarded if in a proper case, to the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court.
it has become an established practice of the company to pay the said benefit

Page 5 of 14
Having established that the issue of the legality of dismissal of Albarico was In the Decision of this Court, the CA Decision was reversed and set aside,
in fact necessarily – albeit not explicitly – included in the Submission and the complaint against petitioner was dismissed. The Court found that
Agreement signed by the parties, this Court rules that the voluntary arbitrator there was no employer-employee relationship between petitioner and private
rightly assumed jurisdiction to decide the said issue. respondent. It was held that while the DOLE may make a determination
of the existence of an employer-employee relationship, this function
Consequently, we also rule that the voluntary arbitrator may award could not be co-extensive with the visitorial and enforcement power
backwages upon a finding of illegal dismissal, even though the issue of provided in Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730. The
entitlement thereto is not explicitly claimed in the Submission Agreement. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) was held to be the
Backwages, in general, are awarded on the ground of equity as a form of primary agency in determining the existence of an employer-employee
relief that restores the income lost by the terminated employee by reason of relationship. This was the interpretation of the Court of the clause in cases
his illegal dismissal. where the relationship of employer-employee still exists in Art. 128(b). Under
Art. 129 of the Labor Code, the power of the DOLE and its duly authorized
hearing officers to hear and decide any matter involving the recovery of
==================================== wages and other monetary claims and benefits was qualified by the proviso
that the complaint not include a claim for reinstatement, or that the aggregate
PEOPLES BROADCASTING vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR money claims not exceed PhP 5,000. RA 7730, or an Act Further
Strengthening the Visitorial and Enforcement Powers of the Secretary
G.R. No. 179652 March 6, 2012 of Labor, did away with the PhP 5,000 limitation, allowing the DOLE
Secretary to exercise its visitorial and enforcement power for claims beyond
Statement of the Case:
PhP 5,000. The only qualification to this expanded power of the DOLE was
In a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, petitioner Peoples Broadcasting only that there still be an existing employer-employee relationship. It is
Service, Inc. (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc.) questioned the Decision and conceded that if there is no employer-employee relationship, whether it has
Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated October 26, 2006 and June been terminated or it has not existed from the start, the DOLE has no
26, 2007, respectively, in C.A. G.R. CEB-SP No. 00855. jurisdiction. Under Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730,
the first sentence reads, Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and
217 of this Code to the contrary, and in cases where the relationship of
Facts: employer-employee still exists, the Secretary of Labor and Employment or
his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to issue compliance
Private respondent Jandeleon Juezan filed a complaint against petitioner orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code and other
with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Cebu City, for illegal labor legislation based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement
deduction, nonpayment of service incentive leave, 13th month pay, premium officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection. It is
pay for holiday and rest day and illegal diminution of benefits, delayed clear and beyond debate that an employer-employee relationship must
payment of wages and noncoverage of SSS, PAG-IBIG and Philhealth. The exist for the exercise of the visitorial and enforcement power of the
DOLE Regional Director found that private respondent was an employee of DOLE.
petitioner, and was entitled to his money claims. Petitioner sought
reconsideration of the Directors Order, but failed. The Acting DOLE Issue:
Secretary dismissed petitioners appeal on the ground that petitioner
submitted a Deed of Assignment of Bank Deposit instead of posting a cash May the DOLE make a determination of whether or not an employer-
or surety bond. When the matter was brought before the CA, it was held that employee relationship exists, and if so, to what extent?
petitioner was accorded due process as it had been given the opportunity to
Held:
be heard, and that the DOLE Secretary had jurisdiction over the matter, as
the jurisdictional limitation imposed by Article 129 of the Labor Code on the YES. The first portion of the question must be answered in the
power of the DOLE Secretary under Art. 128(b) of the Code had been affirmative. No limitation in the law was placed upon the power of the DOLE
repealed by Republic Act No. (RA) 7730. to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. No
Page 6 of 14
procedure was laid down where the DOLE would only make a preliminary G.R. No. 87530 June 13, 1990
finding, that the power was primarily held by the NLRC. The DOLE must GERONIMO SADOL vs. PILIPINAS KAO, INC.
have the power to determine whether or not an employer-employee
relationship exists, and from there to decide whether or not to issue FACTS:
compliance orders in accordance with Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as Petitioner was recruited as a laborer by private respondents Requito
amended by RA 7730. The elements to determine the existence of an Vega, Antonio Gomez and Belen Gomez, who are the owners of Vega & Co.,
employment relationship are: (1) the selection and engagement of the a private recruitment agency, with assignment at respondent Pilipinas Kao,
employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; (4) the Inc. (PKI for brevity), particularly at the Pit Burning area. Sometime on April
[9]
employers power to control the employees conduct. The use of this test is 16, 1984, he was allegedly summarily dismissed. Hence, on July 24, 1986,
not solely limited to the NLRC. The DOLE Secretary, or his or her he filed a complaint for reinstatement and backwages with Region X of the
representatives, can utilize the same test, even in the course of inspection, Department of Labor and Employment in Cagayan de Oro City.
making use of the same evidence that would have been presented before the November 13, 1986, the labor arbiter ordered all parties to submit
NLRC. The determination of the existence of an employer-employee their position papers. Only petitioner complied. On December 17, 1986,
relationship by the DOLE must be respected. If the DOLE makes a finding petitioner filed an urgent motion that the failure of respondent to file their
that there is an existing employer-employee relationship, it takes cognizance position papers is a waiver and so judgment should be rendered in favor of
of the matter, to the exclusion of the NLRC. The DOLE would have no petitioner. Similar motions were filed by petitioner on January 23, 1987 and
jurisdiction only if the employer-employee relationship has already been May 15, 1987.
terminated, or it appears, upon review, that no employer-employee June 26, 1987, the labor arbiter rendered a decision ordering private
relationship existed in the first place. Under Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as respondents to jointly and solidarity pay petitioner his separation pay
amended by RA 7730, the DOLE is fully empowered to make a determination computed at one month for every year of service within the reglementary
as to the existence of an employer-employee relationship in the exercise of period. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC. Said respondents also appealed
its visitorial and enforcement power, subject to judicial review, not review by but it was filed out of time.
the NLRC. To recapitulate, if a complaint is brought before the DOLE to August 26, 1988, the Second Division of the NLRC promulgated a
give effect to the labor standards provisions of the Labor Code or other decision modifying the appealed decision in that respondent PKI was ordered
labor legislation, and there is a finding by the DOLE that there is an to reinstate petitioner to his former position without loss of seniority rights and
existing employer-employee relationship, the DOLE exercises other accrued benefits and with full backwages from the time of dismissal up
jurisdiction to the exclusion of the NLRC. If the DOLE finds that there is to his actual reinstatement, and in case reinstatement is impossible, payment
no employer-employee relationship, the jurisdiction is properly with the of full backwages and separation pay of one (1) month salary for every year
NLRC. If a complaint is filed with the DOLE, and it is accompanied by a of service. The appeal of respondent Pig was dismissed for having been filed
claim for reinstatement, the jurisdiction is properly with the Labor out of time.
Arbiter, under Art. 217(3) of the Labor Code, which provides that the The PKI allegedly received a copy of the decision of the NLRC only
Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction over those cases on September 13, 1988. A motion for reconsideration of said decision dated
involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and September 22, 1988 was filed by said respondent and a similar motion was
conditions of employment, if accompanied by a claim for filed by Samahang Kabuhayan ng Barangay Luz Banzon (SKLB for brevity)
reinstatement. If a complaint is filed with the NLRC, and there is still an to which an opposition was filed by petitioner.
existing employer-employee relationship, the jurisdiction is properly On September 30, 1988, a resolution was promulgated by the same
with the DOLE. The findings of the DOLE, however, may still be division of the NLRC, setting aside its decision and dismissing the case for
questioned through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules lack of merit. A motion for reconsideration thereof filed by petitioner who
of Court. The DOLE had no jurisdiction over the case, as there was no besides questioning its findings of facts raised the issue that said
employer-employee relationship present. Thus, the dismissal of the respondent’s appeal having been filed out of time its motion for
complaint against petitioner is proper. reconsideration of the decision should not have been entertained as it raised
issues for the first on appeal which were not raised before the labor arbiter.
====================================== This motion was denied on November 27, 1988.

Page 7 of 14
ISSUE: ONG vs. CA
WON THE NLRC SERIOUSLY ERRED AND/OR COMMITTED GRAVE G.R. No. 152494. September 22, 2004
ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN GIVING DUE COURSE AND/OR
ENTERTAINING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY FACTS:
RESPONDENT-APPELLANTS AND REVERSING ITS OWN Petitioner is the sole proprietor of Milestone Metal Manufacturing (Milestone),
DECISION/RESOLUTION DATED AUGUST 26, 1988; which manufactures, among others, wearing apparels, belts, and
[3]
umbrellas. Sometime in May 1998, the business suffered very low sales
WON THE NLRC SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO GIVE DUE and productivity because of the economic crisis in the country. Hence, it
CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT'S OPPOSITION TO adopted a rotation scheme by reducing the workdays of its employees to
[4]
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 1988. three days a week or less for an indefinite period.
On separate dates, the 15 respondents filed before the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) complaints for illegal dismissal,
RULING: underpayment of wages, non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, service
th
There is no question that private respondents failed to file a timely incentive leave pay, 13 month pay, damages, and attorneys fees against
appeal from the decision of the labor arbiter while the petitioner was able to petitioner. These were consolidated and assigned to Labor Arbiter Manuel
interpose his appeal within the reglementary period. It is also an accepted Manasala.
postulate that issues not raised in the lower court or the labor arbiter may not Petitioner claimed that 9 of the 15 respondents were not employees of
be raised for the first time on appeal. Milestone but of Protone Industrial Corporation which, however, stopped its
The rules of technicality must yield to the broader interest of justice. It is only operation due to business losses.Further, he claims that respondents Manuel
by giving due course to the motion for reconsideration that was timely filed Abuela, Lolita Abelong, Ronnie Herrero, Carlos Tabbal, Conrado Dabac, and
that the NLRC may be able, to equitably evaluate the conflicting versions of Lodualdo Faa were not dismissed from employment; rather, they refused to
facts presented by the parties. work after the rotation scheme was adopted. Anent their monetary claims,
Attached to respondent SKLB’s motion likewise is the joint affidavit of one petitioner presented documents showing that he paid respondents minimum
th
Mario T. Ecarnum and Benito U. Ecarnum who jointly stated that they were wage, 13 month pay, holiday pay, and contributions to the SSS, Medicare,
[5]
neighbors and co- workers of the complainant in the pit burning area, in a and Pag-Ibig Funds.
work contracted by aforesaid respondent with respondent Pilipinas Kao, Inc.; On November 25, 1999, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision awarding to
that complainant abandoned his work starting April 19,1984 when he went to the respondents the aggregate amount of P1,111,200.40 representing their
th
Manila to apply for work abroad and it wall only about eight (8) months later wage differential, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and 13 month
that he returned when he failed to secure an overseas employment; that pay, plus 10% thereof as attorneys fees. Further, petitioner was ordered to
complainant’s prolonged absence was without prior permission or leave of pay the respondents separation pay equivalent to month salary for every
absence. year of service due to the indefiniteness of the rotation scheme and strained
[6]
It does strike Us as odd that if indeed complainant was dismissed sometime relations caused by the filing of the complaints.
in April 1984 it took him almost three (3) years before filing the instant case Petitioner filed with the NLRC a notice of appeal with a memorandum of
for illegal dismissal . This circumstance adds a significant dimension to appeal and paid the docket fees therefor. However, instead of posting the
respondent’s position that indeed complainant abandoned his job to look for required cash or surety bond, he filed a motion to reduce the appeal
greener pastures and it was only when he failed to find such opportunity that bond. The NLRC, in a resolution dated April 28, 2000, denied the motion to
he came back to demand that he be allowed to resume the employment reduce bond and dismissed the appeal for failure to post cash or surety bond
[7]
which he unceremoniously abandoned. within the reglementary period. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was
[8]
All the foregoing undisputed taken together, preponderate in favor of likewise denied.
respondent SKLB’s claim of being a lawful independent labor contractor Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals alleging that
which employed complainant who unjustifiably abandoned his employment. the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for
non-perfection of appeal although a motion to reduce appeal bond was
====================================== seasonably filed. However, the petition was dismissed and thereafter the
[
motion for reconsideration was likewise dismissed for lack of merit.

Page 8 of 14
ISSUE: xxxxxxxxx
WON THE CA COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR AND GRAVE ABUSE OF Section 6. Bond. In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter, the Regional
DISCRETION IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE NLRC DISMISSING Director or his duly authorized Hearing Officer involves a monetary award, an
THE APPEAL OF PETITIONERS (sic) FOR NON-PERFECTION WHEN A appeal by the employer shall be perfected only upon the posting of a
MOTION TO REDUCE APPEAL BOND WAS SEASONABLY FILED WHICH cash or surety bond, which shall be in effect until final disposition of the
IS ALLOWED BY THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE NLRC. case, issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the
Commission or the Supreme Court in an amount equivalent to the monetary
HELD: award, exclusive of damages and attorneys fees.
The petition lacks merit. The employer, his counsel, as well as the bonding company, shall submit a
Time and again it has been held that the right to appeal is not a natural right joint declaration under oath attesting that the surety bond posted is genuine.
or a part of due process, it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be The Commission may, in justifiable cases and upon Motion of the Appellant,
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of reduce the amount of the bond. The filing of the motion to reduce bond shall
law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the not stop the running of the period to perfect appeal. (Emphasis ours)
[11]
requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost. In the case at bar, petitioner received the decision of the Labor Arbiter
Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended, sets forth the rules on appeal on January 6, 2000. He filed his notice of appeal with memorandum of
from the Labor Arbiters monetary award: appeal and paid the corresponding appeal fees on January 17, 2000, the last
ART. 223. Appeal. Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final day of filing the appeal. However, in lieu of the required cash or surety bond,
and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties he filed a motion to reduce bond alleging that the amount of P1,427,802,04
within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or as bond is unjustified and prohibitive and prayed that the same be reduced to
orders. x x x. a reasonable level. The NLRC denied the motion and consequently
xxxxxxxxx dismissed the appeal for non-perfection.Petitioner now contends that he was
In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the deprived of the chance to post bond because the NLRC took 102 days to
employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety decide his motion.
bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Petitioners argument is unavailing.
Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment While, Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRCs New Rules of Procedure allows the
appealed from. (Emphasis ours) Commission to reduce the amount of the bond, the exercise of the authority
The pertinent provisions of Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the is not a matter of right on the part of the movant but lies within the sound
[12] [13]
NLRC, which were in effect when petitioner filed his appeal, provide: discretion of the NLRC upon showing of meritorious grounds. Petitioners
Section 1. Periods of Appeal. Decisions, awards or orders of the Labor motion reads:
Arbiter and the POEA Administrator shall be final and executory unless 1. The appeal bond which respondents-appellants will post in this case is
appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar P1,427,802.04. They are precisely questioning this amount as being
days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter x x unjustified and prohibitive under the premises.
x. 2. The amount of this appeal bond must be reduced to a reasonable level by
xxxxxxxxx this Honorable Office.
Section 3. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. (a) The appeal shall be filed WHEREFORE, in view thereof, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable
[14]
within the reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of this Rule; shall be Office that the appeal bond of P1,427,802.04 be reduced.
under oath with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting After careful scrutiny of the motion to reduce appeal bond, we agree with the
of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 5 of this Rule; shall be Court of Appeals that the NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion
accompanied by a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds when it denied petitioners motion for the same failed to either elucidate why
relied upon and the arguments in support thereof; the relief prayed for; and a the amount of the bond was unjustified and prohibitive or to indicate what
[15]
statement of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision, would be a reasonable level.
[16]
order or award and proof of service on the other party of such appeal. In Calabash Garments, Inc. v. NLRC, it was held that a substantial
A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisite monetary award, even if it runs into millions, does not necessarily give the
aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.

Page 9 of 14
employer-appellant a meritorious case and does not automatically warrant a While the bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards has been
reduction of the appeal bond. relaxed in certain cases, this can only be done where there was substantial
Even granting arguendo that petitioner has meritorious grounds to reduce the compliance of the Rules or where the appellants, at the very least, exhibited
[22]
appeal bond, the result would have been the same since he failed to post willingness to pay by posting a partial bond. Petitioners reliance on the
[23]
cash or surety bond within the prescribed period. case of Rosewood Processing, Inc. v. NLRC is misplaced. Petitioner in the
The above-cited provisions explicitly provide that an appeal from the Labor said case substantially complied with the rules by posting a partial surety
Arbiter to the NLRC must be perfected within ten calendar days from receipt bond of fifty thousand pesos issued by Prudential Guarantee and Assurance,
of such decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter. In a judgment Inc. while his motion to reduce appeal bond was pending before the NLRC.
involving a monetary award, the appeal shall be perfected only upon (1) In the case at bar, petitioner did not post a full or partial appeal bond within
proof of payment of the required appeal fee; (2) posting of a cash or surety the prescribed period, thus, no appeal was perfected from the decision of the
bond issued by a reputable bonding company; and (3) filing of a Labor Arbiter. For this reason, the decision sought to be appealed to the
memorandum of appeal. A mere notice of appeal without complying with the NLRC had become final and executory and therefore immutable. Clearly,
other requisites mentioned shall not stop the running of the period for then, the NLRC has no authority to entertain the appeal, much less to
[17]
perfection of appeal. The posting of cash or surety bond is not only reverse the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Any amendment or alteration made
mandatory but jurisdictional as well, and non-compliance therewith is fatal which substantially affects the final and executory judgment is null and void
[18]
and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory. This for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceeding held for that purpose.
requirement is intended to discourage employers from using the appeal to
delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy their employees just and ======================================
[19]
lawful claims.
The intention of the lawmakers to make the bond an indispensable requisite
for the perfection of an appeal by the employer is underscored by the PAL vs. NLRC
provision that an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the Mar 20, 1998 G.R. No. 120567 | Martinez, J.
posting of a cash or surety bond. The word only makes it perfectly clear that
the lawmakers intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer Facts:
to be the exclusive means by which an employers appeal may be Private respondents are flight stewards of the petitioner. Both were
[20]
perfected. dismissed from the service for their alleged involvement in the April 3, 1993
The fact that the NLRC took 102 days to resolve the motion will not help currency smuggling in Hong Kong. Joseph Abaca, respondent's Avionics
petitioners case. The NLRC Rules clearly provide that the filing of the motion Mechanic in Hongkong was intercepted by the Hongkong Airport Police
to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect carrying a bag said to contain some 2.5 million pesos in Philippine
appeal. Petitioner should have seasonably filed the appeal bond within the Currencies. Mr. Abaca claimed that he just found said plastic bag at the
ten-day reglementary period following the receipt of the order, resolution or Skybed Section of the arrival flight PR300/03 April 93, where petitioners
decision of the NLRC to forestall the finality of such order, resolution or served as flight stewards of said flight PR300. Abaca was made to identify
decision. In the alternative, he should have paid only a moderate and petitioners as co-conspirators but Mr. Joseph Abaca finally gave exculpating
reasonable sum for the premium, as was held in Biogenerics Marketing and statements to the board in that he cleared petitioners from any participation
[21]
Research Corporation v. NLRC, to wit: or from being the owners of the currencies, and at which hearing Mr. Joseph
x x x The mandatory filing of a bond for the perfection of an appeal is evident Abaca volunteered the information that the real owner of said money was
from the aforequoted provision that the appeal may be perfected only upon one who frequented his headquarters in Hongkong.
the posting of cash or surety bond. It is not an excuse that the over P2 million
award is too much for a small business enterprise, like the petitioner Just as petitioners thought that they were already fully cleared of the
company, to shoulder. The law does not require its outright payment, but charges, as they no longer received any summons/notices on the intended
only the posting of a bond to ensure that the award will be eventually "additional hearings" mandated by the Disciplinary Board," they were
paid should the appeal fail. What petitioners have to pay is a moderate surprised to receive on February 23, 1995 a Memorandum dated February
and reasonable sum for the premium for such bond. (Emphasis ours) 22, 1995 terminating their services for alleged violation of respondent's Code
of Discipline effective immediately. Aggrieved by said dismissal, private

Page 10 of 14
respondents filed with the NLRC a petition for injunction praying that (a) a preliminary mandatory injunction prayed for by the private respondents in
temporary restraining order be issued, prohibiting respondents (petitioner their petition before the NLRC can also be entertained by the labor arbiter
herein) from effecting or enforcing the Decision dated Feb. 22, 1995, or to who has the ancillary power to issue preliminary injunctions or restraining
reinstate petitioners temporarily while a hearing on the propriety of the orders as an incident in the cases pending before him in order to preserve
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is being undertaken.(b) After the rights of the parties during the pendency of the case.
hearing, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction be issued ordering
respondent to reinstate petitioners to their former positions pending the The power of the NLRC to issue an injunctive writ originates from
hearing of this case, or, prohibiting respondent from enforcing its Decision "any labor dispute" upon application by a party thereof, which application if
dated February 22, 1995 while this case is pending adjudication. (c) After not granted "may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render
hearing, that the writ of preliminary injunction as to the reliefs sought for be ineffectual any decision in favor of such party." It is an essential
made permanent, that petitioners be awarded full backwages, moral requirement that there must first be a labor dispute between the
damages of PHP 500,000.00 each and exemplary damages of PHP contending parties before the labor arbiter. In the present case, there is
500,000.00 each, attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent of no labor dispute between the petitioner and private respondents as
whatever amount is awarded, and the costs of suit. there has yet been no complaint for illegal dismissal filed with the labor
arbiter by the private respondents against the petitioner.
NLRC - On April 3, 1995, the NLRC issued a temporary mandatory injunction
enjoining petitioner to cease and desist from enforcing its February 22, 1995 Thus, the NLRC exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued the
Memorandum of dismissal. assailed Order granting private respondents' petition for injunction and
ordering the petitioner to reinstate private respondents.
1. Private respondents cannot be validly dismissed on the strength of
petitioner's Code of Discipline which was declared illegal by this Court in ================================================
another case.
2. The whimsical, baseless and premature dismissals of private respondents Lepanto Consolidated Mining Corporation vs. Icao
which "caused them grave and irreparable injury" is enjoinable as private GR NO. 196047. January 15, 2014
respondents are left "with no speedy and adequate remedy at law" except
the issuance of a temporary mandatory injunction.
3. The NLRC is empowered under Article 218 (e) of the Labor Code to FACTS:
require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute, which, if not Private respondent essentially alleged in his complaint that he was an
restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to employee of petitioner LCMC assigned as a lead miner in its underground
any party. mine in Paco, Mankayan, Benguet.

Issue: Can the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), even without At their workplace, private respondent did some barring down, installed five
a complaint for illegal dismissal filed before the labor arbiter, entertain an (5) rock bolt support, and drilled eight (8) blast holes for the mid-shift blast.
action for injunction and issue such writ enjoining petitioner Philippine They then had their meal break. When they went back to their workplace,
Airlines, inc. from enforcing its Orders of dismissal against private they again barred down loose rocks and drilled eight (8) more blast holes for
respondents, and ordering petitioner to reinstate the private respondents the last round of blast.
totheir previous positions? – NO
Thereafter, he decided to take a bath and proceeded at [sic] the bathing
Held: station where four (4) of his co-workers were also present. Before he could
NO. Under the Labor Code, the ordinary and proper recourse of an join them, he heard a voice at his back and saw Security Guard (SG) Larry
illegally dismissed employee is to file a complaint for illegal dismissal with Bulwayan instructing his companion SG Dale Papsa-ao to frisk him. As
the labor arbiter. In the case at bar, private respondents disregarded this private respondent was removing his
rule and directly went to the NLRC through a petition for injunction praying boots, SG Bulwayan forcibly pulled his skullguard from his head causing it to
that petitioner be enjoined from enforcing its dismissal orders. The fall down [sic] to the ground including its harness and his detergent soap

Page 11 of 14
which was inserted in the skullguard harness. A few minutes later, private arrangement is not allowed under the rules of procedure of the NLRC.
respondent saw SG Bulwayan [pick] up a wrapped object at the bathing Furthermore, the CA said that since the payment of appeal fees and the
station and gave it to his companion. SGs Bulwayan and Papsaao invited the posting of an appeal bond are indispensable jurisdictional requirements,
private respondent to go with them at the investigation office to answer noncompliance with them resulted in petitioner’s failure to perfect its appeal.
questions regarding the wrapped object. He was then charged with
“highgrading” or the act of concealing, possessing or unauthorized extraction ISSUE
of highgrade material/ore without proper authority. Private respondent Whether or not petitioner complied with the appeal bond requirement under
vehemently denied the charge. Consequently, he was dismissed from his the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules by filing a Consolidated Motion to
work. Private respondent claimed that his dismissal from work was without release the cash bond it posted in another case, which had been decided
just or authorized cause since petitioners failed to prove by ample and with finality in its favor, with a view to applying the same cash bond to the
sufficient evidence that he stole gold bearing highgrade ores from the present case.
company premises.
HELD
As such, private respondent prayed that petitioners be held liable for illegal Appeal is not a matter of right, but is a mere statutory privilege. Thus, a party
dismissal, to reinstate him to his former position without loss of seniority who seeks to exercise the right to appeal must comply with the requirements
rights and benefits, and to pay his full backwages, damages and attorney’s of the rules; otherwise, the privilege is lost.
fees. Private respondent received a copy of the resolution of the company
informing him of his dismissal from employment due to breach of trust and In appeals from any decision or order of the labor arbiter, the posting of an
confidence and the act of highgrading. appeal bond is required under Article 223 of the Labor Code.

We reiterate our pronouncement in Araneta v. Rodas, where the Court said

LABOR ARBITER that when the law does not clearly provide a rule or norm for the tribunal to
Labor arbiter rendered a Decision holding petitioner and its CEO liable for follow in deciding a question submitted, but leaves to the tribunal the
illegal dismissal and ordering them to pay respondent Icao P345,879.45, discretion to determine the case in one way or another, the judge must
representing his full backwages and separation pay. The alleged highgrading decide the question in conformity with justice, reason and equity, in view of
attributed by LCMC’s security guards was found to have been fabricated; the circumstances of the case. Applying this doctrine, we rule
that petitioner substantially complied with the mandatory requirement of
NLRC posting an appeal bond for the reasons explained below.
Petitioner and its CEO filed an Appearance with Memorandum of Appeal First, there is no question that the appeal was filed within the 10-day
before the NLRC. Instead of posting the required appeal bond in the form of reglementary period. Except for the alleged failure to post an appeal bond,
a cash bond or a surety bond in an amount equivalent to the monetary award the appeal to the NLRC was therefore in order.
of P345,879.45 adjudged in favor of Icao, they filed a Consolidated Motion Second, it is also undisputed that petitioner has an unencumbered amount of
For Release Of Cash Bond And To Apply money in the form of cash in the custody of the NLRC.
Bond Subject For Release As Payment For Appeal Bond (Consolidated Third, the cash bond in the amount of P401,610.84 posted in Dangiw
Motion). They requested therein that the NLRC. In its Order, the NLRC First Siggaao is more than enough to cover the appeal bond in the amount of
Division dismissed the appeal of petitioner and the latter’s CEO for P345,879.45 required in the present case.
nonperfection. It found that they had failed to post the required Petitioner Fourth, this ruling remains faithful to the spirit behind the appeal bond
and its CEO filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Their motion was denied in a requirement which is to ensure that workers will receive the money awarded
Resolution. Hence, they filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA. in their favor when the employer’s appeal eventually fails. There was no
showing at all of any attempt on the part of petitioner to evade the posting of
COURT OF APPEALS the appeal bond. On the contrary, petitioner’s move showed a willingness to
CA issued its assailed Decision affirming the Order of the NLRC First comply with the requirement. Hence, the welfare of Icao is adequately
Division, which had dismissed the appeal of petitioner and the latter’s CEO. protected.
According to the CA, this ============================================

Page 12 of 14
MCBURNIE V. GANZON RULING:

FACTS: Yes. Section 6, Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure provides:
McBurnie, an Australian national, instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal
and other monetary claims against the respondents. McBurnie claimed that In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director involves a
he signed a five-year employment agreement with the company EGI as an monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the
Executive Vice-President. Six months into the employment, he figured in an posting of a cash or surety bond…No motion to reduce bond shall be
accident that compelled him to go back to Australia while recuperating from entertained except on meritorious grounds and upon the posting of a bond in
his injuries. While in Australia, he was informed by respondent Ganzon that a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.
his services were no longer needed because their intended project would no In addition to the apparent merit of the respondents’ appeal, the Court finds
longer push through. the reduction of the appeal bond justified by the substantial amount of the
LA’s monetary award. To require an appeal bond in such amount could only
The respondents contends that their agreement with McBurnie was to jointly deprive respondents of the right to appeal, even force them out of business
invest in and establish a company for the management of hotels. They did and affect the livelihood of their employees. The Court also holds that, under
not intend to create an employer-employee relationship. the circumstances, the respondents had posted a bond in a "reasonable
amount", and had thus complied with the requirements for the perfection of
LA: McBurnie was illegally dismissed, and an appeal from the LA’s decision.
• Entitled to the following: US$ 985,162.00 as salary and benefits for
the unexpired term of their employment contract; P 2,000,000 as moral and On the matter of the filing and acceptance of motions to reduce appeal bond,
exemplary damages; Attorney’s fee = 10% of the total monetary award the following guidelines shall be observed:
(a) The filing of a motion to reduce appeal bond shall be entertained by the
NLRC: NLRC subject to the following conditions: (1) there is meritorious ground; and
• Respondents filed their Memorandum of Appeal and Motion to (2) a bond in a reasonable amount is posted;
Reduce Bond and posted an appeal bond in the amount of P100,000 (b) For purposes of compliance with condition no. (2), a motion shall be
• Respondents claimed that an award of more than P60 Million Pesos accompanied by the posting of a provisional cash or surety bond equivalent
was a patent nullity and because of their business losses they lacked the to ten percent (10%) of the monetary award subject of the appeal, exclusive
capacity to pay the bond of almost P60 Million of damages and attorney's fees;
• Denied motion to reduce bond; respondents file with the CA a
Petition for Certiorari (c) Compliance with the foregoing conditions shall suffice to suspend the
• Dismissed respondents’ appeal for failure to post the required running of the 1 0-day reglementary period to perfect an appeal from the
additional bond; respondents again filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari labor arbiter's decision to the NLRC;
(d) The NLRC retains its authority and duty to resolve the motion to reduce
CA: bond and determine the final amount of bond that shall be posted by the
• Allowed the respondents’ motion to reduce appeal bond = P appellant, still in accordance with the standards of meritorious grounds and
10,000,000.00 reasonable amount; and
• Directed the NLRC to give due course to their appeal (e) In the event that the NLRC denies the motion to reduce bond, or requires
a bond that exceeds the amount of the provisional bond, the appellant shall
be given a fresh period of ten 1 0) days from notice of the NLRC order within
ISSUES: which to perfect the appeal by posting the required appeal bond.
1. whether the reduced appeal bond posted by respondents is a
sufficient compliance with requirements for the perfection of an appeal from =================================
the LA’s decision

Page 13 of 14
Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc. vs. CA act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one
forum,of seeking another (and possible) opinion in another forum (other than
FACTS: by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari), or the institution of two (2)
Petitioner filed a number of actions (1 before the LA, 3 before the or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the
NLRC, and 2 before the RTC)where it raised a common issue, which is that it supposition that one or the other would make a favorable disposition.
is the owner of the properties located in the compound and buildings of Artex (2) A third party whose property has been levied upon by a sheriff toenforce
Development Corporation, which were erroneously levied upon by the sheriff a decision against a judgment debtor is afforded with several alternative
of the NLRC as a consequence of an NLRC decision against it in a labor remedies to protect its interests. The third party may avail himself of
case. The CA dismissed petitioners’ action filed before it, on the ground of alternative remedies cumulatively, and one will not preclude the third party
forum shopping. from availing himself of the other alternative remedies in the event he failed
Yupangco filed with the CA a motion for reconsideration of the decision and in the remedy first availed of. These are the alternative remedies:
argued that the filing of a complaint for accion reinvindicatoria with (a) File a third party claim with the sheriff of the Labor Arbiter, and
theRegional Trial Court was proper because it is a remedy specifically (b) If the third party claim is denied, the third party may appeal the denial to
granted to an owner (whoseproperties were subjected to a writ of execution the NLRC.
to enforce a decision rendered in a labor dispute in which it was not a party) Even if a third party claim was denied, a third party may still file a proper
by Section 17 (now 16), Rule 39, Revised Rules of Court. Petitioner also action with acompetent court to recover ownership of the property illegally
argued that the reliefs sought and the issues involved in the complaint for seized by the sheriff, and this is supported by Section 17 (now 16), Rule 39
recovery of property and damages filed with the RTC, presided over by of the Revised Rules of Court.
respondent judge, were entirely distinct and separate from the reliefs sought The SC ruled that upon due application by the third person and after
and theissues involved in the proceedings before the LA and the NLRC. The summary hearing, it may command the release of the property from the
CA, however, denied the motion. mistaken levy and the restoration to the rightful owner or possessor. The SC
is limited however to a determination of whether the sheriff has acted rightly
ISSUES: or wrongly in the performance of his duties in the execution of judgment,
(1) Was petitioner guilty of forum shopping? more specifically, if he has indeed taken hold of property not belonging to the
(2) Did the CA correctly dismiss the complaint for accion reinvindicatoria on judgment debtor. It does not and cannot pass upon the question of title to the
the ground of lack of jurisdiction? property, with any character of finality. It can treat of the matter only insofar
as may be necessary to decide if the sheriff has acted correctly or not. It can
HELD: require the sheriff to restore the property to the claimants possession if
(1) NO. The SC previously held in Golangco vs. CA that “there is no forum- warranted by the evidence, otherwise, the claim will be denied.
shopping where two different orders were questioned, two distinct causes of Thus, the filing of a third party claim with theLA and the NLRC did not
action and issues were raised, and two objectives were sought.”In the case preclude the petitioner from filing a subsequent action for recovery of
at bar, there was no identity of parties, rights and causes of action and reliefs property and damages with the RTC, and the institution of such complaint will
sought.The case before the NLRC where Labor Arbiter Reyes issued a writ not make petitioner guilty of forum shopping.A separate civil action for
of execution on the property of petitioner was a labor dispute between Artex recovery of ownership of the property would not constituteinterference with
and Samar-Anglo. Petitioner was not a party to the case. The only issue the powers or processes of the LA and the NLRC which rendered
petitioner raised before the NLRC was whether or not the writ of execution thejudgment to enforce and execute upon the levied properties. The property
issued by the labor arbiter could be satisfied against the property of levied upon beingthat of a stranger is not subject to levy. Thus, a separate
petitioner, not a party to the labor case. On the other hand, the accion action for recovery, upon a claim and prima-facieshowing of ownership by
reinvindicatoria filed by petitioner in the trial court was to recover the property the petitioner, cannot be considered as interference.
illegally levied upon and sold at auction. Hence, the causes of action in these Yupangco wins.
cases were different.
The rule is that for forum-shopping to exist both actions must involve the ================================
same transactions, the same circumstances. The actions must also raise
identical causes of action, subject matter and issues.Forum-shopping is the

Page 14 of 14